"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture."
-- Pope Sixtus III

Friday, June 06, 2014

On Wednesday Chester Nez, one of the 29 original Navajo code talkers
who worked for the US during WWII sending secret messages in their
native language, died in his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Nez was
93, and his death was confirmed by Judy Avila, who helped him write his
memoirs, according to The Los Angeles Times.

Nez was one of the first code talkers recruited for the job in 1942,
while the US was seeing its codes broken over and over again by Japanese
code breakers. According to AZCentral,
he was in tenth grade when he was recruited by US Marines, who came to
his boarding school in Arizona looking for native Navajo speakers.

Navajo has a complex grammar, and at the time there were few, if any, written records of the language. CNN notes
that Nez and his peers were forbidden to speak Navajo growing up—until,
of course, they were needed to devise a code based on the language. The
29 Navajo men attended boot camp at Camp Pendelton in California and
there devised a dictionary with special words for military terms that
did not exist in Navajo. They then memorized that dictionary, as the Naval History and Heritage Command recounts:

When a Navajo code talker received a message, what he
heard was a string of seemingly unrelated Navajo words. The code talker
first had to translate each Navajo word into its English equivalent.
Then he used only the first letter of the English equivalent in spelling
an English word. Thus, the Navajo words "wol-la-chee" (ant),
"be-la-sana" (apple) and "tse-nill" (axe) all stood for the letter "a."
One way to say the word "Navy" in Navajo code would be "tsah (needle)
wol-la-chee (ant) ah-keh-di- glini (victor) tsah-ah-dzoh (yucca)."

Most letters had more than one Navajo word representing them. Not all
words had to be spelled out letter by letter. The developers of the
original code assigned Navajo words to represent about 450 frequently
used military terms that did not exist in the Navajo language. Several
examples: "besh- lo" (iron fish) meant "submarine," "dah-he- tih-hi"
(hummingbird) meant "fighter plane" and "debeh-li-zine" (black street)
meant "squad."

The Navajo code talkers were primarily employed in the Pacific
Theater of Operations, and Nez himself served in the thick of fighting
in Guadalcanal, Guam, Peleliu, and Bougainville.

“In developing our code, we were careful to use everyday Navajo
words, so that we could memorize and retain the words easily,” Nez told CNN in 2011.
“I think that made our job easier, and I think it helped us to be
successful in the heat of battle. Still, I worried every day that I
might make an error that cost American lives. But our code was the only
code in modern warfare that was never broken. The Japanese tried, but
they couldn’t decipher it. Not even another Navajo could decipher it if
he wasn’t a code talker.”

The US Marines eventually recruited more Navajo speakers, and by 1945
somewhere between 375 to 420 were working as code talkers. The code
talkers were forbidden from discussing their work until 1968, when the
program was declassified.

After Dwight Eisenhower left the White House, he asked to be reinstated in the US Army because, he said, five hundred years from now nobody will remember he was President of the United States but they will always remember he led Our Boys into Normandy.

From National Catholic Reporter:

Martha Heizer, the head of the reform international movement We Are
Church in Austria, and her husband, Gert Heizer, have been
excommunicated by the Vatican for celebrating Mass without a priest
present, according to a statement from the diocese of Innsbruck,
Austria.

Bishop Manfred Scheuer said in the statement that "publicizing their
practice of having 'private Eucharistic celebrations without the
presence of a priest' " forced the bishop "to initiate legal action."

On Wednesday, the bishop read the final decree issued by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith to the Heizers at the diocesan
court in Innsbruck in the presence of two judges of the diocese,
according to a statement from the Heizers.
"This does not mean that we are not part of the church anymore," the
Heizers said in the statement, published Thursday in Austrian daily Tiroler Tageszeitung and translated for NCR by Bernie Aurin. "By virtue of our baptism we remain part of the church as long as we ourselves do not choose to leave her."

Wrong. You have chosen to leave the Church by virtue of your defective will and who knows what else.

The diocesan statement, sent by email Thursday from diocesan spokesperson Michael Gstaltmeyr and also translated for NCR
by Aurin, stated that the Heizers may apply within 10 days with the
bishop for the "nullification or for a change in the stipulations of
this decree, including a temporary stay."

Scheuer also said that "it was very clear to them what their actions
would mean to the church. For me it is a defeat that we did not manage
to get the couple to change their minds and avoid legal proceedings.
Determining self-excommunication is never a victory, but always a defeat
for the church."

The Heizers said they were expecting to be punished and that Scheuer
had told the couple that their personal conscience should "not allow us
to break church laws."
Celebrating the Eucharist unauthorized by the church is one of the
"three most grave offenses," the statement from the Heizers said. "The
other two offenses are breaking the confidentiality of the confessional
and sexual abuse."

The Heizers said they are "appalled to find ourselves put into the
same category as those priests that sexually abused minors. This is
especially bitter for us because we are not aware of a single
perpetrator of sexual abuse that was excommunicated."

Obfuscation.

The diocesan statement stated there is "hope that those persons
responsible for holding 'private Eucharistic celebrations' will come to
realize what they are doing, see the damage that they are causing to the
church and change their ways."
However, the Heizers aren't backing down.

"We have not accepted the decree," their statement said. "We have
refused it. ... We will continue to commit ourselves to the reform of
the Catholic church. These proceedings illustrate very clearly how
urgent the church needs to be renewed."

The We Are Church international movement was founded in Rome in 1996,
according to the organization's website, and it is committed to the
renewal of the church on the basis of the Second Vatican Council. We Are
Church evolved from the Church Referendum in Austria in 1995 that was
started after the child sexual abuse scandal surrounding Austrian
Cardinal Hans Gröer.

Hitlery Schicklgruber, the once and future cow, prepares to mount the throne.

But"What difference at this point does it make?”

From the Atlantic Wire via Yahoo News:

"What difference at this point does it make?”

A 34-page chapter of Hillary Clinton's upcoming book, Hard Choices, is all about the Benghazi attacks. According to a copy of the chapter obtained by Politico,
a substantial portion is clearly meant to address ongoing committee
hearings convened by the GOP-led House of Representatives, who believe
that Clinton was part of a conspiracy to cover up government knowledge
of the attack. There's been a "regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media,” Clinton writes.

The former Secretary of State goes on to say that she "will not be part
of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans," adding, "it's
just plain wrong, and it's unworthy of our great country. Those who
insist of politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me."

"What difference at this point does it make?”

Clinton has already given testimony at a House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi in 2013, but
that line is probably directed at the next step in the Republican
investigation into the attacks: a big special committee,
announced earlier this spring, that could keep the show going through
the fall and into the final stretch of the midterm season. That
committee is already working to establish their timeline of the events leading up to the attack, which the Republican leadership believes is incomplete, even after a Senate report and a State Department review.

Politico's Maggie Haberman
explains that the book is already being used to help Democrats to
address Clinton's participation in the government response to the
attacks. She writes:

The
section was obtained and reviewed by POLITICO on the eve of a meeting
in which members of Democratic-leaning groups will be briefed by
Clinton’s team about how she addresses the attacks in the book.

And
in a sign of the concerted effort to rebut the ongoing controversy in a
cohesive way, Clinton’s camp has brought on former National Security
Council spokesman and longtime President Barack Obama hand Tommy Vietor
to assist in the response to the book, a source familiar with the plan
said.

And, Clinton herself will sit down with Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren for a lengthy interview
to air June 17. The interview is part of her book tour, but the
network's history of being very, very interested in Benghazi conspiracy
theories (along with Clinton devoting an entire chapter to it) suggests
that the attacks will be a topic of focus.

"What difference at this point does it make?”

The chapter will address a number of specific points about the attacks:

On the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in the attack:

Stevens's death was “a
punch in the gut,” Clinton writes, adding, that the death of "fearless
public servants in the line of duty was a crushing blow... as Secretary I
was the one ultimately responsible for my people’s safety, and I never
felt that responsibility more deeply than I did that day.”

"What difference at this point does it make?”

The role of an anti-Islamic video in the Benghazi attacks:

Citing "later investigation and reporting" (see: here)
on the attacks, Clinton writes that the video was "indeed a factor."
She adds that those at the consulate on that night had "different
motives": "“It
is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by
this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them
were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”

"What difference at this point does it make?”

How Obama and the military responded to the attacks:

“[Obama]
gave the order to do whatever was necessary to support our people in
Libya. It was imperative that all possible resources be mobilized
immediately. … When Americans are under fire, that is not an order the
Commander in Chief has to give twice. Our military does everything
humanly possible to save American lives — and would do more if they
could. That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will
never understand.”

"That’s
not how it works. It shouldn’t. And it didn’t," Clinton writes, noting
that the cables bore her name as a "procedural quirk” and not because
they went directly to her.

"What difference at this point does it make?”

Why she wasn't interviewed for the Accountability
Review Board investigation, and whether that's proof that she rigged
the entire investigation as part of the massive cover-up for Obama:

"[the
board] had unfettered access to anyone and anything they thought
relevant to their investigation, including me if they had chosen to do
so.”

"What difference at this point does it make?”

On Susan Rice's early statements to the press after the attacks:

"Early", eh? Interesting adjective. Fog of war and all that, no doubt. But ...

"What difference at this point does it make?”

“Susan
stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at
the time...That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the
way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with
Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting
something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have
blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as
intentionally deceitful.”

"What difference at this point does it make?”

Why she didn't go on the Sunday morning shows herself:

Some,
she writes, "fixate on the question of why I didn’t go on TV that
morning, as if appearing on a talk show is the equivalent of jury duty,
where one has to have a compelling reason to get out of it. I don’t see
appearing on Sunday-morning television as any more of a responsibility
than appearing on late-night TV. Only in Washington is the definition of
talking to Americans confined to 9 A.M. on Sunday mornings.”

"What difference at this point does it make?”

On why she said "what difference at this point does it make?” about the motivations behind the attacks:

"In yet another example of the terrible politicization of this tragedy,
many have conveniently chosen to interpret [it] to mean that I was
somehow minimizing the tragedy of Benghazi. Of course that’s not what I
said...My point was simple: If someone breaks into your home and takes
your family hostage, how much time are you going to spend focused on how
the intruder spent his day as opposed to how best to rescue your loved
ones and then prevent it from happening again?”

"What difference at this point does it make?”

Hard Choices comes out on June 10. Read more on the Benghazi chapter at Politico.

From the Atlantic wire via Yahoo News:

It's possible President Obama thought the Bowe Bergdahl
deal would be the triumphant, feel-good story of the week. Instead
members of Congress have promised to hold hearings on the prisoner
trade, arguing that they were not properly notified beforehand. Obama, during a press conference in Poland, defended the deal, arguing that retrieving prisoners of war is a "sacred" American rule...

If she's the boss, you better get to work! A little more than two months before releasing her 10th studio album, Sinéad O'Connor unveiled its surprising cover featuring a nearly unrecognizable snapshot of the music legend.

Sporting a jet-black bob with
dramatic bangs, smoky eye makeup, and a skintight black PVC leather
dress (complete with a high neck and long sleeves), the singer looks
like a heroine from a Quentin Tarantino film... who could do some
serious damage with that glittered guitar.

Obviously, the whole sexy, futuristic superhero look for I'm Not Bossy, I'm the Boss
is a major departure from her standard style, which is defined by a
shaved head, light makeup, and relatively unfussy clothes. So what
inspired such a dramatic about-face in the icon?

It was Sheryl Sandberg, or, rather, the women's empowerment movement Sandberg created. O'Connor took to her personal website to explain her change of heart.

"Originally I had a different title, The Vishnu Room, but a few months back when I saw the phrase 'I’m not bossy, I'm the boss' and became aware of the Ban Bossy
campaign, I wished I could re-name the album, since indeed it can be
tricky being a female boss and I think Sheryl’s campaign is a terribly
important one."

In fact, this power struggle is something the star has been dealing with for decades. Back in February, she explained
that her iconic anti-glam image was an intentional act of rebellion
against record executives when she was first starting out in the '80s.

"I got put into the record
business at a time when record executives were a little frisky. Put it
that way," O'Connor said. "You had to protect yourself straight off.
You'd be better to have a bag on your head, really." But the execs had
other ideas in mind.

"They wanted me to grow my hair
really long and wear miniskirts and all that kind of stuff because they
reckoned I'd look much prettier," O'Connor shared. "So I went straight
around to the barber and shaved the rest of my hair off … to make myself
as unattractive as I possibly could."

Silly bunt. All she had to do was start talking. That would be enough to sabotage any erection.

But even though there's no doubt
that O'Connor is now the boss (and has been for a long time), changing
the title of her latest album at first seemed impossible.

"At the stage I became aware of
the Ban Bossy campaign, it was too late to change the album title
because the sleeve was already in print," the star lamented in her blog
post before explaining a fortunate turn of events. "Last week, when the
record company received the promo shots, which included the cover shot
you now see, they asked could they change the planned cover to the
current one, and that allowed me the opportunity of changing the title."

About Me

First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct.
"My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up.
What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.